Support for President Bush by Location

Originally Posted by Dryth

Because there's nothing religious about it. Again, refer to the first amendment, which seems to address this very statement on your part.

The very basis of your question is flawed, which is why you aren't getting an answer to the question itself. Example: When did you stop beating your wife?

The First Amendment does not say anything about religious beliefs. It says that the 'government' (as an entity, not as the individuals within it) cannot support or establish a 'religion' (as an entity, not the individuals within it--or the individual beliefs, which they might easily have had without the religion's existence).

And, to answer your question: before I ever started.

I'm not saying that athiests came up with it. I'm saying it's an ATHEIST idea. The removal of religion from various aspects of life is one of the main goals of atheism.

Why should the system be allowed to enforce THESE religious views, but not other religious views?

That's all I'm asking.

Separation of Church and State means there can be no Church of America. Those who thought it up, the founders of the nation, acknowledged that a main reason the Americas had been so successful was because of those fleeing the Church of England, and they didn't want that being repeated in America. The idea itself is not atheist in any way - they are saying they don't want government running their churches; they're not saying that religion cannot exist in the government.

Politicians can be whatever religion they want and be however open about it as they wish. They're not making you worship any certain way (particularly their way), they're not controlling religion, so they aren't breaking the line between church and state.

To sum it up, Separation of Church and state doesn't mean politicians can't be religious; it means they can't control the religion of the country.

Thank you.

The idea itself is not atheist in any way - they are saying they don't want government running their churches; they're not saying that religion cannot exist in the government.

The 'idea' of not having an 'offical church of America' is not atheist, yes. But I'm talking about the way the idea is applied (or at least, how people think it should be applied) today.

To sum it up, Separation of Church and state doesn't mean politicians can't be religious; it means they can't control the religion of the country.

Thank you.

Exactly. Listen to him. ^^

Originally Posted by LionHarted

The First Amendment does not say anything about religious beliefs. It says that the 'government' (as an entity, not as the individuals within it) cannot support or establish a 'religion' (as an entity, not the individuals within it--or the individual beliefs, which they might easily have had without the religion's existence).

Which is exactly what separation of church and state is. See how easy that was? No need to blame atheists or anything.

Originally Posted by LionHarted

And, to answer your question: before I ever started.

There must be a "WHOOSH!" smiley here somewhere...

EDIT:

Originally Posted by LionHarted

But I'm talking about the way the idea is applied (or at least, how people think it should be applied) today.

And how exactly do you see it being applied? You seem to be operating from the perspective that the separation is used only as some evil tool of atheists to stifle religion, ignoring the fact that it always has and continues to have major impact on the civil rights of all Americans, whether religious or not. There will always be edge cases that abuse such institutions in society, but they're insignificant against the greater civil rights issues we're protected against. The same reasoning you push would have us ban cars for being tools of death because a few people use them in homicide.

Originally Posted by RMT:)

Uh...I said that my opinion can be easily misguided. Please read my whole post.

I did. I never would expect it to see it in the post you make about it, though.

I really dont want to get in a debate with this. As I have talked about it so much already it makes me just want to throw up. But just to clarify my opinion.

Yeah, I am a Bush supporter. Does that mean I worship the groud he walks on, and eat the people alive that dont like him? NO. God. I think he can be awfully headstrong sometimes, and I dont always agree fully with what he does. But for the most part, I support him. You can disagree with the president, but its ridiculous what some people are doing and saying about him these days.

And a thought on the war. Think of it this way. Iraq was suffering deaths constantly, when sadam ruled. Do you realize, that troops have reported seeing MOUNDS and MOUNDS and MOUNDS of dirt piles? Those thousands of dirt piles were people who were killed from Sadam. So your almost saying that it would be better just to let this happen-under our noseses ... and sit here watching all these people die. Yeah, that sure sounds unselfish.

And kids were walking around in my school today chanting "Bush caused the hurricane, Bush caused the hurricane"

Yup. He sure did folks. Since he is a religious man, I mean, waht is stoping him from just telling God to smote Louisiana?

Seriously. I did not find that funny at all. People should not be joking like that over a devistation that is the worst natrual disaster to hit the US.

Originally Posted by Dryth

Which is exactly what separation of church and state is. See how easy that was? No need to blame atheists or anything.

Yes, but I was responding to Mirren's post that said: "Bush should not incorporate his religious ideas in his leadership as much as he does." Because, according to Amendment 1, why can't he? He was elected, after all, and we KNOW how religious he is (or tries to be).

And I'm not blaming atheists. Please don't interpret it that way. I'm saying that the idea is atheist. Just like the idea of 'good faith and works' is Christian.

There must be a "WHOOSH!" smiley here somewhere...

Ha. 'Whoosh.'

And kids were walking around in my school today chanting "Bush caused the hurricane, Bush caused the hurricane"

Yup. He sure did folks. Since he is a religious man, I mean, waht is stoping him from just telling God to smote Louisiana?

I fervently dislike people who hold that opinion--simply because 'smiting Louisiana' is making gas prices go up, which doesn't help his image at all. There would be no logic in wiping out parts of the east coast, even if he is in cahoots with the divine.

And how exactly do you see it being applied? You seem to be operating from the perspective that the separation is used only as some evil tool of atheists to stifle religion, ignoring the fact that it always has and continues to have major impact on the civil rights of all Americans, whether religious or not.

I am merely arguing that the people who DO interpret it in the extreme--that religious beliefs should be left out of politics completely--are 'pressing their beliefs' on the system as well, and that it is a hypocrisy. I'm not slamming the system. I'm slamming the idiots who abuse it.

Originally Posted by LionHarted

Yes, but I was responding to Mirren's post that said: "Bush should not incorporate his religious ideas in his leadership as much as he does." Because, according to Amendment 1, why can't he? He was elected, after all, and we KNOW how religious he is (or tries to be).

Because of the first amendment itself. If the law of the country is modelled around his religious beliefs then it is in violation of the first amendment.

Even outside of the first amendment, and as previously addressed, the fact that the man uses God's name to punctuate speeches of war and as a source of guidance in doing so, however euphemized, is truly mind boggling. That's the same sort of BS that he'll then turn around and condemn in the likes of Iran.

Originally Posted by LionHarted

I am merely arguing that the people who DO interpret it in the extreme--that religious beliefs should be left out of politics completely--are 'pressing their beliefs' on the system as well, and that it is a hypocrisy. I'm not slamming the system. I'm slamming the idiots who abuse it.

Either you're now waffling on your previous points or you should learn to stop stereotyping. The fact that you've consistently targeted atheism as if it's out to destroy religion is offensive to me in the same way that it'd likely be offensive to you if I characterized all Christians as racist.

Originally Posted by Dryth

Because of the first amendment itself. If the law of the country is modelled around his religious beliefs then it is in violation of the first amendment.

Any law that has ANYTHING to do with morality is modeled around some religious groups beliefs. ANY LAW.

Originally Posted by LionHarted

Any law that has ANYTHING to do with morality is modeled around some religious groups beliefs. ANY LAW.

Not all morals are dependent on religion. However, not all religions share the same base morals. Applying religious morals isn't essential to crafting laws, and laws crafted with a given religion in mind risk undermining other religions within society.

Originally Posted by Dryth

Not all morals are dependent on religion. However, not all religions share the same base morals. Applying religious morals isn't essential to crafting laws, and laws crafted with a given religion in mind risk undermining other religions within society.

So, should laws relating to the moralities of certain religions simply not exist?

I am canadian and I hate Bush. Everybody that I know hates him. I think this war haas been going on for long enough. It's probably not even about the bombing any more. Bush is probably obseesed with his amount of power and just sending people over there to die.

I dont think electing Bush was a great idea. I dont really know why but to me it looks like he's been doing everything wrong. And he is an ******* to. I seen on the Insider that in some meeting he said "when we get medicine from Canada, we want to make sure it cures us, not kills us." What is this? Canada is not going to kill you, you ignorant SoB.

Well thats what I think.

And has he even caught Osama? Just wondering

Me no like censor bypasses. -- Bobslob

I wish I was in Canada. Of course Canadians are going to not like bush because most canadians are cool people compared to american people who are always with the anger and the pissed off every 5 seconds.

and I couldnt agree more or say it any better than you did ozzy720

*The spirit of MC GRAMMAR speaks in this post*

Um okay well you admit you don't know sh** so how is it your right to say i don't either?

Punctuation is important to prevent misunderstanding. "Um(this is unnecessary. You are typing and not speaking; as such you have many chances to think before you write)" "*Okay(unnecessary),* *well(unnecessary)*" Best sentence here: "You admit you do not understand the issues. How is it your right to say I do not know, if that is the case?"

Just because I'm young doesn't mean i can't think independently.

Despite being young I can think independently. (Be sure to capitalize)

That's exactly why i hate "adults".

That is why "I"(capitalized) hate "adults." Note the addition of the punctuation before the end of the quotation marks. Though uncommon this is the correct traditional way to write them.

They think they know EVERYTHING there is to know when they are just as if not more clueless than kids.

Undecipherable. I suggest: "They believe themselves to be more knowledgeable than children or young adults despite the demonstrable falsehood of this claim."

Also, I'm the one with grammar problems?

Yes.

Well you'd like to adress the later so i can't help you.

You would like to address the latter so I can't help you. (This is unconnected to any other thoughts in the sentence.

Sign of being evil implying you have defeated your enemy. In fact: YHBT. YHL. (You have been trolled. You have lost.)

EDIT: The post that was quoted was deleted but is in entirety and in order within the quotes.

Originally Posted by LionHarted

If you're an American and you don't support your own President, you are a fool. Just a thought. That's like trying to live but not supporting your heart. The executive branch is the heart of the nation, and you have to live with yours, however inefficient or annoying or whatever else it may be. I'm not asking you to be happy. I'm just asking you to suck it up.

Wait out the term, and get your own man/woman in office, if you care THAT much. I doubt ANYONE on this site is a hardcore political activist, or closely involved with someone in a governmental office, or otherwise. Unless by some freakish care you actually are, please don't complain--tell it to the government, since they're the ones who really 'need' to hear you anyway. Honestly.



First of all, I would think that posters not being American would inspire a different insight, since they are the most affected by the U.S.'s foreign policy, which the executive branch plays a very large role in. Secondly, being too young to vote hardly indicates a lack of knowledge on the subject. There are 50-year-olds that I don't trust to make informed decisions, especially when it comes to the ballot. Age hardly is a factor in the ability to make decisions. Information is so readily available nowadays.



Anyone who would waste his time 'passionately' discussing someone else's 'stupidity' has his priorities terribly out of line.



Anyone who would place prejudice on a specific individual for the sake of 'not minding his own business' is a hypocrite. You even committed a double-hypocrisy by slandering his family. I applaud you. Not many can pull that one off.



To put it quite plainly, politics, as an institution, could be considered atheism, which is a form of religion.

So... politics IS a religion.

Besides, without religion, there ARE no politics, since everyone would then have the same beliefs.

Just because I'm an American doesn't mean I have to support the president that I never wanted in the White House because I couldn't vote.
If you ask me you are the fool because you assume people's gender in a forum.
Of course you say "his" because you are probably a typical sexist male. You know whatever....
Hey here's a question...
Who started this post and why?
This is just gonna end up with people getting warned and stuff.

Oh and all of a sudden people aren't allowed to be "passionate" about topics of interest?
Jeez well excuse me i didn't get the memo!

Oh and thanks for the applause. I pride myself on being able to do such things.

This thread has had enough. I'm sure we can all agree about that.